Hi Guys, I've seen a lot of Image Optimization posts. There are posts saying that JPG is the best for images considering the compression and SEO. Although I agree that usually JPG is better in compression, I disagree that JPG is the best in compression. I also disagree that JPG is the best for SEO or Google Image Search. Most websites use JPG thus it keeps being displayed than GIF. Nothing else. There has been no proof or experiment showing that JPG is better than GIF. If you have some data from experiment about this please share it in your reply. Now, to proof my point about "JPG is NOT ALWAYS the best in compression", here's a real example: This image has been in my HD for a long time. It's a template pattern for a garment industry. Well, I know nothing about garment industry, I just have the image from my friend who is in the garment industry. This image has the closest similarity to the vector based images (mostly blueprints) that is used in the architecture industry. In other post in this DP section I've said that most architecture images are vector based images and GIF has the best compression for that one. Way so much better than JPG. I used Adobe Photoshop "save for web" function to compress it into GIF and JPG with 2-up display to ensure that the quality won't change according to my eyes. Here's the result: - The original format is in Targa TIFF (.TIF) - The resolution is 2,362 x 2,357 (remember that the resolution won't be changed) - The TIFF file size is 5,445 KB in size, that's around 5.5 MB. - The maximum compression using GIF is using 4 color format (the 2 color format will change the quality) - The maximum compression using JPG is using 99% compression and 1% quality. - The end result in GIF: 277Kb in size - The end result in JPG: 337Kb in size - If I convert from the GIF to JPG, the JPG size will be: 387Kb in size That's 60Kb in difference. Big enough in the www world to be taken into consideration. Especially if you have around 10 images like that on 1 page like image gallery, portfolio, or something like that. That will be 600Kb in difference. Even people with broadband will feel the "slow". Dial up people will feel that they are in a "waiting hell". Thus.... In this example it is proven that GIF is better than JPG in term of compression. This is a proof that JPG is NOT ALWAYS the best in compression. I've also attached the GIF version of the image for you to study. Hope you guys understand that JPG is not the holy grail in web image area. Of course if you have found a way to compress the JPG so that it will be smaller than the GIF without changing the quality according to the eyes after giving similar treatment to both the GIF and the JPG, let me know. Regards, P.S. It seems that the resolution is too big as attachment. I've uploaded it at: http://special.providenthost.com/ns/152.gif
Hey there, It really depends what you take the photo of. If you have a photo of a person, you can forget about using GIF. The quality is not going to be as good. For cartoon bitmap graphics, use GIF I would rather have photo quality over photo size any day. Sincerely, Travis Walters
Well said and true. And that is what this post about. Remember that I've said: Many people here are posting "Use only JPG for image". IMO, that is not a wise advice at all. It does in general, but it may mislead some people in specialized industry in the wrong way.
Hey there. Well stated Another really useful type of graphic is PNG. Thats a discussion for the graphics part of this forum though. I do not think graphics effect SEO, but please correct me if I am wrong. Well, I guess you could argue that the alt and title tag of an image could help if keywords are placed in them. Sincerely, Travis Walters
PNG have the advantage over JPG and GIF but file size is larger and i think file size is important not lesser than ALT tag of the picture.
If you are using fewer than 256 colors in an image then GIF is almost always a better format to use (at least in terms of file size). The JPEG format was initially designed for photographic image compression which can involve millions of colors. I agree that the thread title is a bit misleading but that might be design since we are sitting here reading the thread
How exactly can the file format be of importance to search engine optimization? I always thought that the ALT-attribute of images is the only thing that matters for search engines. Am I wrong? A bit off-topic, but is it considered a black hat SEO-trick to use alt="This is not a porn picture" for random non-pornographic images, simply to drive more traffic to your website?
Images are important to getting traffic. I get alot of traffic from Image results just by putting the alt attribute in. This is more bounce back traffic, but many do stick around and browse the site, because I had the image they were looking for.
I agree with the traffic issue but, is this related with the JPG and GIF thing that's been discussing in here?
1. Did some1 say that JPEG is always the best? 2. The thread title is misleading. 3. Any photoshop newbie knows that you use .JPG when you have "many" colors, and you use GIF when you have "less than many" (read < 255).
How about PNG? Any stats to share? Are you using only one image program for the comparison? IMO, GIMP blows photoshop away on scaling and compression. Point being, you must use many examples to qualify the data or you are comparing authoring programs, not image type quality.
Well, I do hope everyone read this although I never intended to mislead. After reading again, well... it may mislead somehow. I believe the answer is "none". The title is Image Optimization, not SE Optimization. Remember I said: Indirectly my friend. If you have smaller size images with no difference of quality in the eyes you will make your visitors happier coz it loads faster. 1. I believe I've read it somewhere, in one or another way (maybe not the exact words). But I guess everyone agree with the content of this small experiment, right? 2. Well... kindda, i guess. 3. Not everyone in the SEO or webmaster world "know" about Photoshop or GIMP. Not everyone know whether a photo has 125 colors or 32M colors. That's why this thread is here. So that new comers (who will become newbie) will understand this thing beforehand. This one image is showing my point that sometimes GIF is smaller than JPG. Afterall if you read Sirrus and Philopoemen reply, you would understand that this thing has been a "fact" for some images (less than 255). It will handle "practically the same" results.
When I think of image optimization I only think of the name which you name the image and the alt tags you use to describe the image for the benifit of the visually impaired. I use Corel because that is what I am use to , and it offers pretty much the same things as photoshop and some of the other programs out there (at a lower cost). For me jpg and gif (if you can still get high res at low file size for gif) work the best for faster loading at good quality, and for the most part shows up pretty good no matter what res the user is using.